Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1461 to 1480 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C - cognizance of offences on basis of supplementary complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner second time - Regarding the filing of the supplementary complaint, the High Court determined that it was permissible under the law, especially when further investigation uncovers new evidence or implicates additional offenders. - However, concerning the Special Judge's actions in taking cognizance and issuing process based on the supplementary complaint, the High Court found them legally unsustainable. It clarified that cognizance can only be taken once for the same offense and that the court cannot take cognizance again based on a supplementary complaint when proceedings are already underway based on the initial complaint.
Invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C - cognizance of offences on basis of supplementary complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner second time - Regarding the filing of the supplementary complaint, the High Court determined that it was permissible under the law, especially when further investigation uncovers new evidence or implicates additional offenders. - However, concerning the Special Judge's actions in taking cognizance and issuing process based on the supplementary complaint, the High Court found them legally unsustainable. It clarified that cognizance can only be taken once for the same offense and that the court cannot take cognizance again based on a supplementary complaint when proceedings are already underway based on the initial complaint.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.